[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.07.03.1545 CDT)]
Well, this seems like control of a perception of efficiency at the program level. You reduce the error of perceiving your own efficiency doing something. But the level the I and perhaps some of the others have been speaking of is genericaly at any control system level, regardless the perception. There is reference signal, perceptual signal, error signal and output signal. So, as I think Rick said, you can control the perception of efficiency, just as you can control the perception of any other program, plan, or strategy. You do that with reference levels set by principles, that perhaps have something to do with "efficiciency good - not meeting deadlines bad".
So then, I think our understanding differs where part does not equal whole, or where the PCT proposal cannot be argued solely on the basis of analysis of a single perception.
--Bryan
···
[JimDundon 07.02.06 1230edt]
Rick, Brian, Martin, Bill
As usual, I was not most effective in explaining what I was talking about in my first post about least action.
What I was trying to ask is this. "Must we be concerned consciously with the efficiency in order for it to appear in our actions. My assumption is that it is not necessary to say "let's be efficient" in order for efficiency to be evidenced in purposeful behavior anymore that it is necessary to focus on purpose or control for them to be present in purposeful behavior.
The characteristic of behavior which we call efficiency must have existed prior to our ever having named it. We can only name those characteristics which are inherent in our nature.
I chose the term least action and used it in the way that Feynman uses it in his book QED. He describes finding the path of least time for light as like finding the least path of time for a lifeguard running and then swimming to rescue a drowning victim. The path of least distance has too much water in it; the path of least water has too much land in it; the path of least time is a compromise between the two.
Light has no choice. It appears to do what we say we see it do and explaining it in terms of least action demonstrates not only the nature of light but also and perhaps even more so reveals the nature of the brain. We can choose our purposes to some degree but to what degree can we choose a purpose and accomplish it with most action and by that action not indicate that it is most action or some other goal which is our purpose and not the stated goal.
Behavior not in accord with the stated goal is called neurotic by an observer. It may be however that the observer is just not satisfied with the behavior. Or it may be that both the behavior called neurotic and the behavior called therapy is a system designed to benefit both parties by making it unnecessary for each of them to engage in physical labor. But this is really getting into a level of abstraction too far removed from the focus of my original question which is meant to focus on lower-level action.
A lifeguard's experience with walking and running and swimming will combine to encourage the path of least time without him ever focusing on it in the form of concept.
My choice of words is limited by the words available and they carry a certain implication. Those implications got in the way of my asking the question clearly and anyone else understanding it. But the gist of my question and my assumption is that we need not verbally and consciously focus on least action or efficiency during an act, just as it we need not focus on control in order for any of these things to be present in behavior. That the presence of that which can be called least action, least effort is given by the design of our brains and our nervous system before it is conceptualized. We see it in animals and they never conceptualize it.
Control theory did not create control. It focused on control after control was discovered upon reflection by humans on human behavior. The word itself comes from an old French word 'controeler' who was the bookkeeper, or the one who compared registers. It came to be applied to machinery in which there was some desired value or condition to be maintained by comparing and maintaining conditions wanted with conditions as they were.
Do perceptions exist before we name them or is their existence simultaneous with their naming? That is, do we create them when we name them. It seems to be that the characteristic exists before we name it. Having named it and understood its content as efficiency we can improve on it with conscious effort, take it to a new level and make it a priority, disregarding all other considerations to the point of stupidity, if we will. That is, we can god it.
My intended question was, is a conscious focus necessary necessary in order for least action to appear in our behavior. My guess is that we need not focus on it, which is in agreement with what each of you has said.
I was not speaking of it as an observer but as a doer. That is, a doer need focus only on his purpose. In doing so, control and less action, relative to the goal and experience, will take care of themselves. He can trust his brain. That is, they will be there as a discoverable phenomenon before any focus is made on them. However, they will be found if what is called control, if what is called perception, if what is called the principal of less action, is looked for.
In cultures where there are no words for least action, control, perception, these things all exist. This is not to say that our lives are not made better by discovering and focusing on them, because that is another part of our design. The reflecting conceptualizing ability.
It would have been better perhaps to have spoken in terms which involve change and improvement over time rather than speaking of them in terms of a state [square wave, block head]. In that case behavior and control and perceptions and less action are all improved on overtime.
So restating my question:
is less action a controlled perception in purposeful behavior from the point of view of the doer, not the observer, with consideration given to experience and knowledge? That is, is the doer compelled to make choices requiring at least an unconscious awareness of the consequences of alternative action? And to choose a sum of those requiring less action to achieve the stated goal if he is engaged in perceptual control?
In some of Bill's writing he uses the illustration of someone catching a ball, in which that which upon reflection is what we call calculus, is at work. This is what I'm talking about when I say a series of choices which result in less action, or a commitment to least action relative to the goal, without a conciousized verbal commitment to least action just as there is no conciousized verbal commitment to control when control is present. When controlling for catching a ball a ballplayer is constantly correcting toward least action or he won't catch the ball.
It may be that the words he efficiency and least action are not identical in connotation but I hope that it is clear that what I was speaking of was a component of controlling for less action which in most cases can be called less effort and consequently more efficient
Anyway, I was not talking about goding efficiency. I am trying to focus on the component of behavior comparable to the lifeguard's choice of action which appears to have least action bill into it and what I would expect to see another behavior.
Bill has often given the fact that a person standing erect as an indication of control. Does this not require sensing the need for more or less action even though the actions are minute? In other words, could this be accomplished without an unconscious effort of the comparison of more or less action and the continuous choice of least action? My guess is no. In PCT terms this is controlling for error, and unless I am mistaken, controlling for error requires action.
Human being do not focus on controlling a perception while behaving they focus on achieving a goal which which according to PCT is controlling for a perception with which I agree. By the same token, error reducing behavior must take time into account.
best
Jim